L.N.MITTAL,J.(ORAL) - (1.) ALLOWED as prayed for. Main Case Defendant No.7 Arun Kumar Mishra by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has assailed order dated
(2.) 04.2012 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon thereby closing evidence of defendant No.7-petitioner by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 2. Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only two more opportunities may be granted to the petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of zimini orders of the trial Court reproduced in the revision petition reveals that defendant No.7-petitioner has been granted in all six effective opportunities of short intervals. Out of the said six dates of hearing, on one date of hearing, examination-in-chief of one witness was recorded and his corss-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the plaintiff. On the next date of hearing, the said witness was partly cross-examined and further cross- examination was deferred as Court time was over. Thus it may be said that only four effective opportunities have been granted to the petitioner by the trial Court.
(3.) KEEPING in view all these circumstances and the heavy stakes involved and the grave adverse consequence if the petitioner is not granted opportunity to lead his evidence, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if aforesaid prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is allowed on payment of heavy costs. Petitioner has to be burdened with heavy costs because the impugned order is dated 02.04.2012 and initially appeal was preferred against the said order is although the appeal is not maintainable. Moreover, on the date of passing of impugned order, an application was moved on behalf of defendant No.7-petitioner for examination of 13 witnesses mentioned in the application. The case was posted for hearing on the said application post-lunch by the trial Court when reply on behalf of plaintiff was filed to the application. However, counsel for defendant No.7 did not even appear before the trial Court for the said hearing.;